The Rabbinate of the Observer

The following was Yitzchok Adlerstein's critique, at the Cross Currents Web site, of Baruch Brody's prescription in Hakira volume 17 for demarcating Modern Orthodox Judaism (presumably vs. Haredi Judaism).

Brody sets out to help us understand. Armed with serious credentials in philosophy as well as medicine, he offers a bold, new definition that is simple, and elegant, and stands up to the criticism to which he subjects it. The Modern Orthodox Jew, says Dr. Brody, is one who also accepts pro tanto the values and teachings of modernity. (He immediately addresses the concerns of those of us who are Latin-challenged, by telling us in a footnote that a pro tanto belief is one that may be overridden by other stronger considerations. This is a crucial point for Brody, as he is certainly not willing to allow the values of modernity to trump clear halacha, and similarly uneasy when those values collide with other forms of traditional thinking. He spends considerable space in the essay offering different strategies of dealing with such conflicts.)

Dr. Brody then takes us on a tour of Western thought since the Renaissance, and culls twelve values that he takes as achievements of modernity that MO should embrace. Briefly, they are: 1) the value of human worth and dignity, and of human individuality; 2) the value of beauty for its own sake; 3) the value of individual conscience in interpreting G-d’s law; 4) the value of toleration (? respect) of diversity; 5) the value of inquiry even into long-established truths; 6) the tentative acceptance of the results of scientific inquiry as true; 7) the value of reason; 8) the belief in cumulative human progress; 9) the rule of law, derived from the consent of the governed that binds all citizens equally; 10) the principle of fundamental human rights held equally by all; 11) the values of liberty, equality and fraternity; 12) the importance of nationality.

Brody fleshes out each of these values, and why MO should look kindly upon each one. I could imagine that this list might some day become the Brody Test of progressive thinking, scoring people on a scale of zero to twelve. (I find some truth in most of the values, while emphatically rejecting only one. Dr. Brody amplifies item #3 with these words: “Modern Orthodox Jews should consult sacred texts to find answers to their questions. To the extent that they feel the need, they should consult the experts on the texts….The common strategy of adopting a single expert authority as one’s authority and following their views in all cases seems to me to be an abdication of individual responsibility.” To me it seems that failure to recognize the need to submit to those who are greater talmidei chachamim runs afoul of many passages in Shas and poskim.)

Adlerstein has in fact identified exactly what is, or ought to be, the difference between Modern Orthodoxy and Haredism.  It is similar to one of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.  In Roman Catholicism the priests are intermediaries between ordinary Christians and God.  Protestantism believes in the "priesthood of all believers".  This is how the Wikipedia article on "Universal Priesthood" defines it:

 Protestants believe that through Christ they have been given direct access to God, just like a priest; thus the doctrine is called the priesthood of all believers. God is equally accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God. This doctrine stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity.

Similarly, Modern Orthodoxy is based, or should be based, on "the Rabbinate of the observers".  
   



I didn't read Brody's original article.  For all I know, Adlerstein may have been deliberately misconstruing Brody's argument in order to set up a straw man to knock down.  It doesn't matter, because I want to address Adlerstein's straw man.

The Mishnah in Daf Yomi Hagigah 11b Reminded Me of an Annoying Translation of RaSHI on the Humash

The Mishnah says "אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה", presumably to be extra careful that the students get the law right.  That reminded me of some very annoyingly prudish translations of רש"י on Vayikra chapter 20 (Chumash with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi's Commentary translated into English and annotated by Rabbi A. M. Silberman in collaboration with Rev. M. Rosenbaum, pubished by the Silberman Family 5745 ISBN 0-87 306-019-9, copyright 1934 by Dr. A. M. Silberman).  On verse 13 RaSHI says
משכבי אשה: מכניס כמחכול בשפופרת
which Silberman translates as "in the manner of marital intercourse". What would be prurient about "inserts like an eyeliner into a tube"?  On verse 18, incipit "הערה". RaSHI says
יש אומרים זו נשיקת שמש, ויש אומרים זו הכנסת עטרה
which Silberman translates as "Some say that it implies a superficial embrace, others a closer intimacy". What would be prurient about "genital contact" vs. "genital penetration"? Contrary to the Mishnah, Silberman could lead people whose first introduction to הלכות ערווה is via his translation to feel guilty about things that they need not feel guilty about and vice versa.

Battles that the Romans lost on their way to the top

In 502 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Pometia
In 482 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Antium
In 477 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of the Cremera
In 390 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Allia River
In 321 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of the Caudine Forks
In 316 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Lautulae
In 298 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Camerinum
In 285 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Arretium
In 280 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Heraclea
In 279 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Asculum
In 260 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of the Lipari Islands
In 253 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Tunis
In 250 BCE the Romans lost the Siege of Lilybaeum
In 249 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Drepana
In 225 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Faesulae
In 218 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of the Ticinus and the Battle of the Trebia
In 217 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Lake Trasimine
In 216 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Canae
In 212 BCE the Romans lost the First Battle of Capua, the Battle of Silaris and the Battle of Herdonia
In 211 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of the Upper Baetis
In 210 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Herdonia and the Battle of Numistro
In 209 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Asculum
In 171 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Callicinus
In 147 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of the Port of Carthage
In 112 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Noreia
In 109 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of the Rhone River
In 107 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Burdigala
In 105 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Arausio
In 89 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Fucine Lake
In 73 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Mount Vesuvius
In 72 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Picenum and the Battle of Mutina I
In 71 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Campania
In 53 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Carrhae
In 16 BCE the Romans lost the Battle of Clades Lolliana
In 9 CE the Romans lost the Battle of the Teutonberg Forest
In 60 CE the Romans lost the Battle of Camulodunum
In 62 CE the Romans lost the Battle of Rhandeia
In 66 CE the Romans lost the Battle of Beth Horon
In 87 CE the Romans lost the First Battle of Tapae
In 114 CE the Roman Empire reached its maximum extent.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Part I: The First 2500 Years: The River Valleys
Western civilization started in this river valley




and in this river valley



Part II: The Second 2500 Years: The Peninsulas

The two river valleys were conquered by people who came from this penninsula



who in turn were conquered by people who came from this penninsula

who then went on to establish the greatest empire that the world had ever seen.  When that empire declined it was split between people who had originally come from these peninsulas



and people who came from this peninsula



The people who had originally come from these peninsulas



eventually took over most of




which, despite the pretensions of the people who live there, is not a continent, but rather a very big peninsula of this continent



The people who live here




eventually conquered almost all the rest of the world, at least temporarily.

Part III: The Third 2500 Years: The Planets

(to be continued)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The Americans and the British invented nuclear weapons because they were scared of the Germans.

The Russians developed their own nuclear weapons because they were scared of the Americans.

The French and the Chinese developed their own nuclear weapons because they were scared of the Russians.

The Israelis developed their own nuclear weapons because they were scared of everyone.

The Indians developed their own nuclear weapons because they were scared of the Chinese.

The Pakistanis developed their own nuclear weapons because they were scared of the Indians.

The North Koreans developed their own nuclear weapons because they were scared of everyone.

The Iranians are the first people who want nuclear weapons just as a matter of national pride.